In Brief
A construction firm contracted to build an irrigation tank and claimed payment for extra work, including stone pitching at rates derived from a typographical error in government rate schedules (which mistakenly listed rates per square metre instead of cubic metre). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of this claim, holding that correcting such an error is not a retrospective modification but merely restating the correct position. The Court rejected the firm's argument that it was entitled to benefit from the government's mistake, noting that the rates in adjacent financial years and the contract's express terms did not support the claim. The appeal was dismissed entirely.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.